AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Police Plaintiff: Defamation
Monthly Law Journal Article: Defamation Claims Against and By Public Safety Personnel - Part 1, 2018 (5) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Defamation Claims Against and By Public Safety Personnel - Part 2, 2018 (6) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Defamation Claims Against and By Public Safety Personnel - Part 3, 2018 (7) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
A
former member of the Ohio House of Representatives was not entitled to immunity
under state law for a letter she wrote concerning police officers' execution of
a search warrant and shooting of a person present on the premises. The appeals
court rejected the argument by the House of Representatives that the trial
court, in order to deny immunity, had to find by clear and convincing evidence
that she acted with "actual malice." The court found that there was
no requirement that such malice be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Additionally, nothing showed that the former representative had any information
from which a reasonable person could believe that the statements in her letter
were true. While she could state her personal opinions about the officers'
actions, this did not justify her accusation that the officers acted with the
criminal intent to murder an individual. Habeeb v. The Ohio House of
Representatives, No. 07AP-895, 2008 Ohio App. Lexis 2225 (Ohio App. 10th
Dist.).
The trial court's issuance of an injunction
barring a deputy sheriff's ex-wife from publishing false and defamatory
statements or confidential personal information about him or from initiating
contact with the sheriff's department concerning him, except for the purpose of
reporting criminal conduct under emergency circumstances violated her free
speech rights under both the U.S. and California constitutions. The order was
an unconstitutional prior restraint and was overbroad and vague. False and
defamatory statements cannot be enjoined before they are found, at trial, to be
defamatory. The prohibition on the publication of confidential personal
information would require a more specific description of the information at
issue, although, if sufficiently described, its publication might violate a
right of privacy under the California constitution. Finally, the wife had a
constitutional right to petition the government that included contacting the
sheriff's department in non-emergency circumstances, and the order prohibiting
her from doing so was not justified by the evidence in the record. Evans v.
Evans, No. D051144, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 689 (4th Dist.).
Police chief was not
entitled to recovery for defamation against the city and its former safety
director on the basis of the publication of a report containing what he claimed
was false statements about him from an inmate and two prostitutes that he had
fathered an illegitimate child with a minor prostitute. The statements
contained in the city's report were protected by a qualified public interest
privilege. Republication of the statements in the report did not show actual
malice towards the chief, especially since the report questioned the
credibility of the statements. Jackson v. City of Columbus, No. 05AP-1035, 2006
Ohio App. Lexis 5166 (10th App. Dist.). [N/R]
In a defamation lawsuit brought by police for
statements made by a township supervisor during the meetings of a township's
board of supervisors, the supervisor was entitled to absolute immunity from
liability under Pennsylvania state law. . Heller v. Fulare, No. 05-3687, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 16843 (3d Cir.). [N/R]
In a police officer's defamation lawsuit against
a newspaper and reporter based on two articles reporting on issues that certain
residents were having with the officer, he was a public figure, so that
liability required a showing of "actual malice," which is knowing
falsity or reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statements
published. A mere showing of "substandard" journalistic practices,
such as the failure to investigate in order to corroborate a source's
statements, is insufficient to satisfy this standard. Bartlett v. Bradford
Publishing, 885 A.2d 562 (Pa. Super. 2005). [N/R]
In a police officer's libel lawsuit against a
newspaper over an article reporting his alleged verbal abuse of a woman, the
"actual malice" legal standard applied, even though the officer was
allegedly off-duty at the time of the incident. The article was focused on the
alleged abuse of police authority based on race, and the plaintiff officer was
wearing his police jacket at the time of his alleged misconduct. "Actual
malice" requires, for liability for defamation, that the plaintiff show
that that false statements were made about him with knowing falsity or in
reckless disregard of their truth. In this case, the officer failed to show
such actual malice, and the reporter could not be required to withhold the
story just because the officer denied making the alleged statements. Smith v.
Huntsville Times Co. Inc., No. 1021999, 888 So. 2d 492 (Ala. 2004). [N/R]
Statements on radio show stating that a police
officer had committed crimes and had an extramarital affair were defamatory per
se, entitling him to an award of damages without proof of economic or
particular loss if he could show their falsity, so that summary judgment for
the defendants on these claims was improper. Gordon v. Boyles, No. 02CA2196, 99
P.3d 75 (Colo. App. 2004). [N/R]
Deputy sheriff was properly awarded $225,000 in
damages against newspaper, its editor/publisher, and a columnist, based on
articles which called him a "murderer" and accused him of beating a
handcuffed arrestee to death with a flashlight. Georgia appeals court finds
that statements were published with knowledge that they were false, or in
reckless disregard of the truth. Lake Park Post, Inc. v. Farmer, #A03A0841, 590
S.E.2d 254 (Ga. App. 2003). [2004 LR Mar]
Ohio police officer could not obtain damages for
defamation based on civil rights organization's actions in distributing a
letter which accused the police department of "killing, raping, planting
false evidence," and himself of using a "marine-style chokehold"
to kill an unarmed suspect. Statements in the letter were opinions protected
under the free speech provisions of the Ohio state constitution. An average
reader, the court holds, "would be unlikely to infer that the statements
were meant to be factual," since the entire letter "was a call to
action and meant to cause outrage in the reader," and the particular
statements were "clearly hyperbole, the opinion of the writer, and were
offered to persuade the reader that an immediate crisis was occurring in the
city." The court also noted that the letter did include reference to the
outcome of a trial in which the officer was found not guilty on an assault
charge and a mistrial was declared on an involuntary manslaughter charge. Jorg
v. Cincinnati Black United Front, No. C-030032, 792 N.E.2d 781 (Ohio App. 1st
Dist. 2003). [N/R]
A newspaper article which was a satire or parody
that, if believed, conveyed a false or defamatory impression was not protected
under the First Amendment as merely an opinion or rhetorical hyperbole, but
could be the basis for a defamation claim if a reasonable reader could have
believed that it was making statements of fact. District Attorney and judge
could pursue claim against newspaper for publishing an article with a made up
story suggesting that they might prosecute and try a first grader for writing a
book report about a children's story since it contained an "implication of
violence." New Times, Inc. v. Isaacks, No. 02-01-023-CV, 91 S.W.3d 844
(Tex. App. Ft. Worth, 2002). [N/R]
Virginia prison warden could not pursue, in
Virginia federal court, defamation claims against Connecticut newspapers for
publishing articles, also posted on their Internet sites, concerning
Connecticut state policy of housing some prisoners in Virginia correctional facilities.
No personal jurisdiction over defendants solely on the basis of the posting of
the articles on the Internet when there was no intention to reach Virginia
readers. Young v. New Haven Advocate, No. 01-2340, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir.
2002). [N/R]
Police officers could not recover damages for
defamation against television network which put African-American
"testers" in an expensive car on the road in order to determine
whether the officers would stop them, and then surreptitiously recorded and broadcast
the resulting stop on television under the title "Driving While
Black." Hornberger v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 799 A.2d 566
(N.J. Super. A.D. 2002). [2002 LR Sep]
Mayor's critical statements about a police
department with between five and eight members could not be the basis for a
defamation lawsuit by one of the officers on the basis of a "small group
theory" that the statements could be taken to apply to each individual
officer. The mere conclusory belief that the statements reported in a newspaper
article concerned the individual plaintiff officer were insufficient for
liability under Virginia law. Dean v. Dearing, No. 011154, 561 S.E.2d 686 (Va.
2002). [N/R]
Police officer could not sue church,
pastor, and their attorney for defamation based on attorney's letter
threatening legal action against the officer for defamation because of
statements officer had made during an investigation. Absolute privilege
protects such letters sent in "contemplation" of judicial proceedings,
even when the claim asserted was later abandoned. Bell v. Lee, No.
04-00-00011-CV, 49 S.W.2d 8 (Tex. App. 2001). [N/R]
Company which issued video stating that police officers
had been "implicated" in deaths of two teenage boys and a subsequent
"cover-up" could not be held liable for defamation when officers
failed to meet the burden of proving either that the statement was false or
that it was made with "actual malice." Arguments disputing the
credibility of those who had "implicated" the officers did not alter
the fact that they had been accused by some. Campbell v. Citizens for an Honest
Government, Inc., No. 00-1411, 255 F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 2001). [2002 LR Jan]
339:45 Missouri police officer could pursue claim
for defamation against person who allegedly filed a "false and
malicious" misconduct complaint with the department; Missouri appeals
court rules that statements made while filing such complaints were protected
only by qualified privilege, rather than absolute privilege. Barge v. Ransom,
No. 23329, 30 S.W.2d 889 (Mo. App. 2000).
299:172 Newspaper not liable for publishing
article stating that arrestee died from injuries sustained during arrest, since
that was "true or substantially true"; statement that he died after a
"beating" by white police officers was not true, however, since all
but one blow by officers were delivered while arrestee was striking at them or
actively resisting arrest; but no liability for false statement, since it was
made without "actual malice" Morris v. Dallas Morning News, Inc, 934
S.W.2d 410 (Tex. App. 1996).